The big thing I think will be when the 64bit ARM hits the shelves - which raises the question where Intel will sit in the equation long term as I'm sure vendors will want to create a product line that scales from top to bottom with the same architecture. With that being said it doesn't seem to hurt Apple having ARM where it is whilst using Intel where it makes sense - after all once you add all the 'stuff' required for am ARM processor suitable for a desktop or a laptop you suddenly find that the power savings doesn't actually deliver very much when compared to the pain involved with moving from one architecture to another.

The post-medfield Atoms pretty much do crush anything ARM can put out.

Just look at the Razr i vs. the Razr m: they are identical except for the CPU (ok, and a camera button). The i gets better battery life and performance. This is in real world tests on my desk, running the same applications.

With such small revenue, how can ARM continue to design chips that beat Intel (400x the revenue last quarter)? They can't possibly design a world-class microarchitecture for that.

Intel's revenue covers the manufacturing, distribution, and all of the other things that a vertically integrated company does, with their corresponding costs. ARM is just design, so it's a totally different equation. Comparing their revenue seems not that relevant. Even if you could see how Intel divided things up internally, you'd still not get the right picture.

For those who don't know, ARM license IP, they don't make anything. They are also growing strongly at a time when "traditional" chipmakers are struggling to do so. No-one is trying to say that ARM and Intel are directly comparable.

Intel are vertically integrated, own their fabs, make their own chips. ARM license designs to whoever will pay. Totally different business model.

That would be a mistake. Even if ARM keeps up this level of earnings, their P/E is 40:1. They'd have to grow by a factor of 3-4 to achieve a typical P/E ratio. That seems like quite the gamble, considering the strong possibility of competition heating up from Intel and others.

For those who don't know, ARM license IP, they don't make anything. They are also growing strongly at a time when "traditional" chipmakers are struggling to do so. No-one is trying to say that ARM and Intel are directly comparable.

Intel are vertically integrated, own their fabs, make their own chips. ARM license designs to whoever will pay. Totally different business model.

EDIT: Dave just beat me to the punch

Indeed, but doesn't ARMs success bolster AMDs decision to be a fabless company?

The post-medfield Atoms pretty much do crush anything ARM can put out.

Just look at the Razr i vs. the Razr m: they are identical except for the CPU (ok, and a camera button). The i gets better battery life and performance. This is in real world tests on my desk, running the same applications.

"The next version of Atom will crush ARM" has been a story repeated many, many times. For the last 60 years, fusion power has been, always and constantly, three decades in the future. For the last five years, Intel has been, always and constantly, six months away from outperforming ARM in mobile.

For those who don't know, ARM license IP, they don't make anything. They are also growing strongly at a time when "traditional" chipmakers are struggling to do so. No-one is trying to say that ARM and Intel are directly comparable.

Intel are vertically integrated, own their fabs, make their own chips. ARM license designs to whoever will pay. Totally different business model.

EDIT: Dave just beat me to the punch

Indeed, but doesn't ARMs success bolster AMDs decision to be a fabless company?

Fabs seem to be such a boat anchor.

Depends how good your IP is. ARM have an architecture whose time has come, in that it is being used in so many handheld devices (and a great many other non-handheld ones; pretty sure lots of cars use ARM chips, for instance). They have been the leaders in the low power area for a long time, and Intel are still playing catchup (although arguably getting closer with every generation). AMD however are trying to muscle in on an area where Intel reign supreme, and in this context, they still need to make and sell millions of CPUs, even if they end up paying someone else to make the chips. I don't really view AMD selling their fabs as a strategy per se, more a desperate attempt to stay afloat.

The post-medfield Atoms pretty much do crush anything ARM can put out.

Just look at the Razr i vs. the Razr m: they are identical except for the CPU (ok, and a camera button). The i gets better battery life and performance. This is in real world tests on my desk, running the same applications.

"The next version of Atom will crush ARM" has been a story repeated many, many times. For the last 60 years, fusion power has been, always and constantly, three decades in the future. For the last five years, Intel has been, always and constantly, six months away from outperforming ARM in mobile.

Edit: timeframefix

Except he's saying that it's already happened, not that 'some day soon' Intel will get there.

Yeah that story is almost as old. Every version of Atom for the last two years has been declared the ascendent ARM killer. Roadmaps, R&D... there is nothing new to this line. Tick-tock on the same old story.

...when compared to the pain involved with moving from one architecture to another.

With iOS on ARM it is a very high probability that OS X runs on ARM today in the labs at Apple. One thing that Steve Jobs learned was to not get locked in to a particular architecture. That is why Apple had OS X running both on Power PC and Intel processors and a big part of the reason that the switch to Intel based Macs was relatively easy.

The post-medfield Atoms pretty much do crush anything ARM can put out.

Just look at the Razr i vs. the Razr m: they are identical except for the CPU (ok, and a camera button). The i gets better battery life and performance. This is in real world tests on my desk, running the same applications.

"The next version of Atom will crush ARM" has been a story repeated many, many times.

Never mind the next version. Old AMD and Intel kit already crush ARM devices if you actually care about computation. ARM has a definite advantage in mobile applications and highly restricted usage.Beyond that, it's just mindlessly over hyped.

Yeah that story is almost as old. Every version of Atom for the last two years has been declared the ascendent ARM killer. Roadmaps, R&D... there is nothing new to this line. Tick-tock on the same old story.

Yes, but with Intels design and manufacturing prowess it would not be prudent to count them out. They did this with the original Core architecture when AMD was ascendent. It will be very telling if Apple were to ever use Atom processors, however with Apple designing their own ARM based processors it seems very super highly unlikely. Things will remain interesting in this space for quite some time.

...when compared to the pain involved with moving from one architecture to another.

With iOS on ARM it is a very high probability that OS X runs on ARM today in the labs at Apple. One thing that Steve Jobs learned was to not get locked in to a particular architecture. That is why Apple had OS X running both on Power PC and Intel processors and a big part of the reason that the switch to Intel based Macs was relatively easy.

The pain of moving from one architecture to another seems to be strictly a Microsoft problem. While Apple tends to be a serial monogamist when it comes to CPU families, they seem to manage those transitions relatively well. With all of the other Unixen, the idea of running across different hardware architectures is a pretty old and mundane idea.

Unfortunately for Intel, the problem is not dominating the market - it's making enough money on the new market to justify their R&D spending. Granted that ARM's profit was just based on design rather than manufacturing, but there's a good argument to be made that that is where the profit is.

If Intel spends billions on R&D in order to trade their $2B profit a quarter for $250M profit a quarter, the shareholders will have the board up against the wall yelling "Ready, Aim, Fire". (Remember, a lot of customers won't abandon the expensive x86 chips until Intel gives its virtual blessing to the market by producing cheap Atom chips. Intel is the only one who can destroy Intel's profits quickly)

Their only hope is to persuade shareholders that their $2B/quarter market was going to go away anyway, so the real choice is between $250M and $0. Good luck with that.

just a thought will arm have to licence any 64 bit instruction sets or is it creating its own version?

It's not "their own version", the ARM architectures are ARM's. They are the ones selling the licenses.

Most companies producing ARM chips license cores, some license the architecture and design their own cores. The most recent information I could find on the ARMv8 (the 64 bit architecture) is that 7 companies had licensed Cortex A57 or A53 cores and 1 had licensed the ARMv8 architecture.

Yeah that story is almost as old. Every version of Atom for the last two years has been declared the ascendent ARM killer. Roadmaps, R&D... there is nothing new to this line. Tick-tock on the same old story.

I like how you wave your hands and dismiss actual performance of existing atom powered smartphones/tablets. If they're already being used why wouldn't you expect increased market presence due to their aggressive pursuit of market share in that space?

Yes, people have been saying it will eventually happen for years now, and now it's happening. Obviously hyperbole is foolishness, Intel won't just suddenly crush ARM, but there seems to be good evidence to suggest that they'll gain good market share as they've had a steady march toward great efficiency.

Yes, people have been saying it will eventually happen for years now, and now it's happening. Obviously hyperbole is foolishness, Intel won't just suddenly crush ARM, but there seems to be good evidence to suggest that they'll gain good market share as they've had a steady march toward great efficiency.

Intell has an overly complicated architecture built on an archaic instruction set and hindered by backwards compatibility requirements. They're making incremental gains in efficiency, but have not gained a large portion of the market.

ARM has a clean, well-designed architecture with minimal restrictions on development. They already have efficiency, they already have the market, and they aren't making incremental gains in performance, they're making giant leaps.

The unfortunate thing here is that according to some people's definitions, ARM Holdings is a patent troll. Not by mine though. As some people consider patent troll as a company that makes no products of its own, but that only makes money by licensing its patent portfolio and designs from that. Since companies that have invented their own IP and license it rather than manufacturing their own products from that have been declared here, and in other places to be patent trolls, I would imagine this company fits that description.

I think that's unfortunate, and shows just how difficult it really is to define exactly what a patent troll is. Some may be obvious, but others are not.

Most companies producing ARM chips license cores, some license the architecture and design their own cores. The most recent information I could find on the ARMv8 (the 64 bit architecture) is that 7 companies had licensed Cortex A57 or A53 cores and 1 had licensed the ARMv8 architecture.

That was just for Q1 2013.

In the notes ARM say that there are now 16 A50 series processor licensees. More importantly they are now nine ARMv8 architecture licensees. That will be Applied Micro, Nvidia, Cavium, Broadcom, and Qualcomm, plus four others. Marvell and Apple are likely to be two of them, Samsung and Calxeda might be the other two, but there are other candidates.

If you find yourself lamenting a delay to invest then your probably already too late. A lot of investors who decided that ARM was undervalued have already made the plunge, as it's stock has doubled in the past year. Unfortunately, when others see that and say I want a piece of that action the original investors pull out their money when they sense a stocks enthusiasm is near it's peak, and then reinvest when it valleys out.

Its usually best to invest after something has declined, not while it's going up. But we can't tell the future. I declined to invest in Apple in April of 2006 because of the same thinking. I could have made more money, but I choose a safer investment instead.

The unfortunate thing here is that according to some people's definitions, ARM Holdings is a patent troll. Not by mine though. As some people consider patent troll as a company that makes no products of its own, but that only makes money by licensing its patent portfolio and designs from that. Since companies that have invented their own IP and license it rather than manufacturing their own products from that have been declared here, and in other places to be patent trolls, I would imagine this company fits that description.

I think that's unfortunate, and shows just how difficult it really is to define exactly what a patent troll is. Some may be obvious, but others are not.

Or it just demonstrates that people don't care so much for definitions as they do labels. The difference between "patent troll" and not, is one of positive effects vs negative contributions.

ARM has a clean, well-designed architecture with minimal restrictions on development. They already have efficiency, they already have the market, and they aren't making incremental gains in performance, they're making giant leaps.

Go and look at their ISA, it's got a lot of irrelevant stuff in it and extra things bolted on to make up for things RISC lacked like vector instructions.

The RISC v CISC debate doesn't exist any more, all modern microarchitectures are broken down into micro-ops internally and the external language doesn't really affect performance or efficiency.

As for restrictions on development? They're still not even 64-bit! You can't put them in servers or normal PCs with that kind of problem. And their memory bandwidth is still low in real SoCs.

ARM is winning because Intel won't take the lower margins, not because their tech is superior.

Unfortunately for Intel, the problem is not dominating the market - it's making enough money on the new market to justify their R&D spending. Granted that ARM's profit was just based on design rather than manufacturing, but there's a good argument to be made that that is where the profit is.

If Intel spends billions on R&D in order to trade their $2B profit a quarter for $250M profit a quarter, the shareholders will have the board up against the wall yelling "Ready, Aim, Fire". (Remember, a lot of customers won't abandon the expensive x86 chips until Intel gives its virtual blessing to the market by producing cheap Atom chips. Intel is the only one who can destroy Intel's profits quickly)

Their only hope is to persuade shareholders that their $2B/quarter market was going to go away anyway, so the real choice is between $250M and $0. Good luck with that.

I think you misunderstand Intel's position. R&D that leads to ever smaller processes benefits their entire product line, we're just reaching a point in their natural progression where the efficiencies can really start to shine in the phone/tablet space. They upped R&D spending last year, and they've consistently shown good return from their R&D spending. The notion that they have to wildly increase R&D just in hopes of gaining some phone/tablet space seems misguided.

The big thing I think will be when the 64bit ARM hits the shelves - which raises the question where Intel will sit in the equation long term as I'm sure vendors will want to create a product line that scales from top to bottom with the same architecture. With that being said it doesn't seem to hurt Apple having ARM where it is whilst using Intel where it makes sense - after all once you add all the 'stuff' required for am ARM processor suitable for a desktop or a laptop you suddenly find that the power savings doesn't actually deliver very much when compared to the pain involved with moving from one architecture to another.

Yes, people have been saying it will eventually happen for years now, and now it's happening. Obviously hyperbole is foolishness, Intel won't just suddenly crush ARM, but there seems to be good evidence to suggest that they'll gain good market share as they've had a steady march toward great efficiency.

Intell has an overly complicated architecture built on an archaic instruction set and hindered by backwards compatibility requirements. They're making incremental gains in efficiency, but have not gained a large portion of the market.

ARM has a clean, well-designed architecture with minimal restrictions on development. They already have efficiency, they already have the market, and they aren't making incremental gains in performance, they're making giant leaps.

The "x86" overhead is not what it was, and Intel have the process / manufacturing leadership to make the most of this fact. They also own the x86 market, particularly from a profitability point of view, which gives them cash flow to pursue the process side as well as the chip and platform design side of things.

Writing them off is just not a good idea, as a lot of RISC UNIX vendors found to their cost. I'm in no way saying they are guaranteed to dominate the market, but the kind of ISA hegemony that ARM have is also unlikely to last.

All of this is excellent in as much as it keeps either party from getting complacent

The unfortunate thing here is that according to some people's definitions, ARM Holdings is a patent troll. Not by mine though. As some people consider patent troll as a company that makes no products of its own, but that only makes money by licensing its patent portfolio and designs from that. Since companies that have invented their own IP and license it rather than manufacturing their own products from that have been declared here, and in other places to be patent trolls, I would imagine this company fits that description.

I think that's unfortunate, and shows just how difficult it really is to define exactly what a patent troll is. Some may be obvious, but others are not.

I don't think any reasonable person considers ARM a patent troll, here on ARS or anywhere else. They expend a lot of RnD effort and their portfolio is no-obvious and they license to everyone at reasonable rates. They are pretty much a poster child for functional patents.

The unfortunate thing here is that according to some people's definitions, ARM Holdings is a patent troll. Not by mine though. As some people consider patent troll as a company that makes no products of its own, but that only makes money by licensing its patent portfolio and designs from that. Since companies that have invented their own IP and license it rather than manufacturing their own products from that have been declared here, and in other places to be patent trolls, I would imagine this company fits that description.

I think that's unfortunate, and shows just how difficult it really is to define exactly what a patent troll is. Some may be obvious, but others are not.

I don't think any reasonable person considers ARM a patent troll, here on ARS or anywhere else. They expend a lot of RnD effort and their portfolio is no-obvious and they license to everyone at reasonable rates. They are pretty much a poster child for functional patents.

I hope not! But I wanted to point out how our definitions are slippery. If we like a company, we will think of them one way, but if we don't, then we think of them another way.

The unfortunate thing here is that according to some people's definitions, ARM Holdings is a patent troll. Not by mine though. As some people consider patent troll as a company that makes no products of its own, but that only makes money by licensing its patent portfolio and designs from that. Since companies that have invented their own IP and license it rather than manufacturing their own products from that have been declared here, and in other places to be patent trolls, I would imagine this company fits that description.

I think that's unfortunate, and shows just how difficult it really is to define exactly what a patent troll is. Some may be obvious, but others are not.

ARM design all the chips they licence, they are nothing like a patent troll. It's a silly comparison.